Exem ption No. 9903A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

SKYWAGON CORPORATION Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0233

for an exemption from § 119.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By letter dated August 13, 2009, Mr. Carlos Gomez, President, Skywagon Corporation (Skywagon), 6113 NW. 72 nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Skywagon to reconsider its request for an exemption from § 119.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Skywagon to operate its Douglas DC-4 (DC-4) airplanes in on-demand operations with a maximum payload of greater than 7,500 pounds under part 135.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 119.3 defines, in pertinent part, that an on-demand operation includes an allcargo operation conducted for compensation or hire with airplanes having a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that it is prepared to upgrade its aircraft considerably in order to meet the FAA concerns with respect to specific equipment and technology identified in the 125/135 ARC and the FAA 18,000-pound study. The petitioner states that the DC-4 is a two crewmember aircraft. The petitioner lists the following actions that it is willing to take, or equipment that it is willing to install, to address the safety issues identified in the 18,000- pound study:

1. Institute a flight following program equivalent to that as specified in § 121.125 as a condition of this grant.

AFS-09-371-E2

2. Meet the requirement of § 135.411(a)(2) as a condition and limitation, as well as a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP).

3. Install Ground Proximity Warning System.

4. Install Traffic Collision Avoidance System.

5. Install on board weather radar.

6. Implement a training program acceptable to the FAA addressing any differences associated with the increased weight or additional equipment

installed on the aircraft.

7. Install cockpit voice recorders.

The petitioner believes that this increase in specific equipment and technology as identified by the 125/135 ARC and the FAA will reduce risk and maintain an equivalent level of safety and serve the public’s interest.

The petitioner requests that the FAA again look at the accident rate between piston-powered aircraft and turboprop aircraft and offers the following points:

1. The DC-3 is currently operating under part 135 and should not be taken into

consideration. Consideration should be fo r aircraft wishing to operate under part 135 with an increase in payload over 7,500 lbs. to a maximum of 18,000 lbs.

2. The aircraft that should be taken into consideration are those seeking a payload increase under part 135, whether piston-powered or turboprop.

3. Alaska accounts for more than a 30 percent increase in accident rates and in some cases close to a 50 percent increase. Due to the remote locations, terrain, and type of operating environments in Alaska, the most rugged, durable, reliable, and dependable aircraft are feasible. This type of environment has proven to be the most suited for the older piston-powered aircraft, hence an increase accident rate for such. This environment is not suited for turboprop aircraft, hence the lack of them operating in Alaska.

Skywagon believes the FAA made an error in only taking turboprop aircraft into consideration with respect to the FAA 18,000-pound payload study for part 135 operators and should consider re-opening this study to include piston-powered aircraft. According to the petitioner, by not reconsidering this study, the FAA has, in effect, selected only turboprop aircraft operators to remain in business and allowed the piston-powered aircraft operators to, in effect, cease operations despite the fact that piston-powered aircraft, per se, are not ineligible to operate under part 135.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:3

The FAA has reconsidered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials for exemption to § 119.3. The FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the regulation.

The FAA appreciates Skywagon’s willingness to upgrade the company’s DC-4s; however, these upgrades do not include the use of simulators or meet the reliability, power, and higher altitudes available with twin-turboprops. These additional items were specified equipment and technology identified in the 18,000-pound study for reducing risks and maintaining this equivalent level of safety. As stated before in the original Denial of Exemption No. 9903, the specific equipment and technology of concern outlined in the study were the availability and use of simulators for training, the use of higher altitudes for avoiding weather, and the airplane characteristics were predicated on turboprop airplanes as opposed to reciprocating engine-powered airplanes. In this case, the DC-4 does not have available simulators for training and is not capable of reaching the higher altitudes as would a turboprop airplane.

The FAA is not considering reciprocating engine-powered airplanes for the part 119 exemption to the 7,500-pound maximum payload. This decision is supported by the findings of the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) study.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Skywagon Corporation for reconsideration of an exemption from 14 CFR § 119.3 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2010.

/s/

J. Randolph Babbitt

Administrator